P6RmaIiP6« 
pH8^ 



E 449 
. S6405 
Copy 2 



OUR COUNTRY, 



OUR COUNTETS CONSTITDTIUN AND LAWS, 

A 

DISCOURSE 

DELIVERED ON THANKSGIVING DAY, 

DECEMBER 12th, 1850, 



CHELSEA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW YORK. 



EDWARD DUNLAP SMITH, D.D, 

PUBLISHED ET REQUEST. 



NEW YORK: 

ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 285 BROADWAY. 

1851. 






O- 



Entered according to Act of Congrass in the year 1851, by 
EDWARD DUNLAP SMITH, 
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern Distrxt of New York. 






RODBRT CRAIOHBA.D, PRINTER, 
112 FULTON STREET. 









V 



MEBIBERS OF THK 

ANO C ONGR JS G ATION 

THE FOLLOW I x\G DISCOURSE 

IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 

BY THE AUTHOR. 



DISCOURSE. 



" Thou hast increased the nation, Lord, thou hast increased the nation ; thou 
art glorified." — Isaiah xxvi. 15. 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." — Eom. xiii. 1. 

On the third of August, 1492, was commenced the 
most important voyage of maritime discovery recorded 
in the annals of the world. The little fleet engaged in 
this enterprise, consisting of three inconsiderable ves- 
sels, left the port of Palos, in Andalusia, at the close of 
a long summer's day. A poetical, if not a logical mind, 
«**^ can see a propriety in this voyage being begun at the 

approach of evening, when the sun, as he sank slowly 
in the west, seemed to be beckoning the adventurous 
navigators towards the obscure and remote scenes of 
their proposed research.* 

In the course of this ever-memorable voyage, the 
variation of the needle and the setting of famihar stars 
seemed at once to denote a change in the laws of 
nature, and an advance into a region from which all 
return might be impossible. 

In these novel circumstances, consternation seized 

* Hume says (vol. iii.. Harpers' ed.), Columbus sailed Aug. 2. Taylor's 
Manual of Mod. Hist., 1850, Aug. 3d. Tytler-s Gen. Hist., 1823, Aug. 3. 



the minds of all the adventurers except one — the stern, 
enthusiastic captain, who retained the cahn assurance 
of success. At length, on the 12th of October, 1492, 
Columbus landed on an island, called by him San Sal- 
vador, lying with others of greater magnitude along 
the central portion of the great western or American 
continent. After visiting several other islands, among 
which were Cuba and Hayti {Tytler's Hist., p. 474), 
he set sail for Europe, Jan. 4, 1493. 

The Spanish discoveries were limited practically, if 
not actually, to the regions lying south of the 30th 
parallel of latitude. 

The American continent, as distinct from the islands 
on its coast, was not discovered by Columbus till his 
third voyage, in 1498. Fourteen months before, and 
consequently in 1497, Jno. Cabot, a Venetian by birth, 
and a resident of Bristol in England, sailing under a 
patent granted by Henry VII., first saw the American 
continent in a high northern latitude {pQ'^) still lying 
beyond the range of modern civilization. (Bancroft's 
Hist., vol. i. p. 9.) 

With John Cabot (Giovanni Gaboto — Tytlers Hist., 
p. 474) sailed his distinguished son, Sebastian, who in 
1498, first touching at Labrador, continued his voyage 
to the south, passing along what is now known as the 
coast of the United States, as low as the State of Mary- 
land. {Bancroft's Hist., p 11.) 

Through these discoveries by the Cabots, father and 
son, England obtained, according to the views then and 
subsequently prevalent, a title to the northern part of 
the American continent. 



The connexion of this country with England has 
been attended with momentous results and with 
unspeakable advantages. The development of conse- 
quences was the work of time, and of agencies vsdiich 
were not foreseen in the early period of discovery. 
Those results, so far as they have been exhibited, have 
afforded the most cheering proofs of a kind, fostering 
providence. 

The peculiar destiny of North America was shaped 
in a signal degree by a private enterprise, begun and 
prosecuted by men seeking the enjoyment of religious 
liberty. 

In the sixteenth century, during the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth, under a rigorous system of ecclesiastical 
conformity, a serious division commenced in the Church 
of England. This division increased in the reigns of 
James I. and qf Charles I. and II. Such were the 
circumstances in the period mentioned, that the conclu- 
sions of men on the subject of religion were strongly 
drawn and strongly maintained. They loved the more 
the doctrines which their reason approved, and against 
which their opponents, armed with governing power, 
sought to array a persecuting and oppressive force. 

Accordingly, a number of Englishmen, loving religious 
freedom better than their English homes in which con- 
straint was put on their consciences, first went to 
Holland, and thence to New England. In their second 
and more perilous emigration, true to their pious faith 
and convictions, they sought the divine blessing, as 
essential both to their temporal and spiritual welfare. 
Holding a fast, they said, " Let us seek of God a right 



way for us and for our little ones, and for all our sub- 
stance." {Bancroft's Hist., vol. i. p. 306.) On leaving 
Delft Haven, one of the pilgrim emigrants has informed 
us, in brief and graphic phrase, of the mode in which 
the English residents at Leyden separated from their 
brethren about to brave the autumnal storms of the 
Atlantic, in search of a western home. " Lifting up 
our hands to each other," he says (Edward Winslow, 
see Bancroft's Hist., p. 307), "and our hearts for each 
other, to the Lord our God, we departed." They first 
visited England, and then, September 6tli, 1620, entered 
upon their purposed voyage amidst uncertainties and 
the just apprehensions of trials and dangers. They 
landed at Plymouth, Dec. 11th (old style), and formed 
the germ of that civil and social development to this 
day prevailing in New England, and which, as lovers of 
the human race, we may wish to see admired and 
imitated in many distant nations of the earth. 

Large accessions were made to the New England 
colony as the oppressive measures against non- conform- 
ists, begun in the days of Elizabeth, were continued by 
James I., and augmented by Charles 1. About the 
year 1630, when Archbishop Laud was at the height 
of his power, extreme and vigorous persecution caused 
many men who loved the very soil of England {Bancroft's 
Hist., vol. i. p. 347), to expatriate themselves and seek a 
home among their brethren, who as pioneers had 
entered the western wilderness before them, and amid 
privations and sickness were rejoicing in civil and 
religious freedom. {NeaVs Hist. Puritans, vol. i. pp. 
367, 477, 534, 546.) (See Note A. Appendix.) 



Among the emigrants were some men of education, 
talents, and learning, as well as piety, who were amply 
qualified to grace the pulpits of the Metropolis or fill 
the professorial chairs of the Universities. 

The names of Higginson, of Elliot the apostle to the 
Indians, of John Colton, B.D., Fellow of Emanuel 
College, Cambridge, John Davenport, B.D., Vicar of 
Coleman Street, London, Thomas Hooker, Fellow of 
Emanuel College, Cambridge, and Lecturer of Chelms- 
ford, Essex, Thomas Sheppard, M.A., John Norton, 
Peter Bulkley, B.D., Fellow of St John's College, 
Cambridge, and Richard Mather, are recorded with 
admiring eulogy by Neal (Hist., vol. i. pp. 546, 57J, 573, 
&c.), and appear in the early colonial history. {Ban- 
croffs Hist., vol. i. p. 363.) 

While emigrants were thus flocking to New England, 
others were establishing themselves in the more south- 
ern latitudes. Some of the men who thus laid the 
foundation of this great Republic were adorned with 
high intellectual and social endowments, as well as 
imbued with the spirit of Christ. There were also 
among the colonists a good proportion of industrious 
practical men, who were willing to obtain a support by 
regular and continued exertion. They were agricul- 
turists or merchants, and as such cukivating the soil and 
engaging in trade, were occupied with employments 
promotive of comfort and an advancing civilization. 

They did not, like the Spaniards in South America, 
waste their time and energies in the rabid pursuit of 
gold. Being Englishmen, and sharing the English 
spirit, they were fitted to found a republic capable of 



10 

making for itself a name among the nations of the 
earth. Here a consideration presents itself of the first 
importance. The time of the emigration to America 
was after the overthrow of the P^^mc?/ in England, and 
the wide diffusion of Protestant sentiments. Those 
who first came to these shores came as English 
Protestants, loving religion, the Bible in the vernacular 
tongue, loving education and hberty. Like John Knox, 
they understood the importance of " planting the parish 
school close by the kirk." 

As Protestants, they admired free inquiry ; as Pro- 
testants, they were not afraid to have the Bible in the 
hands of the people for general perusal ; and were pre- 
pared to examine principles and strike out new modes 
of civil government. Instead of feeling themselves 
bound down to established forms and precedents, and 
dependent on hoar antiquity, they were bold enough 
to consult reason and common sense, and judge of 
the rights of man and trust to the ahility of the people to 
make and maintain a government. ' They could dis- 
pense with a Kings counsel in the formation of a civil 
community, and with a Popes or Bishops in the adjust- 
ment of Church order. 

Let it never be forgotten that the civil freedom of 
this country had its origin in the Protestant mind, and 
was fostered and established by the same Protestant 
influence which gave it birth. 

In vain will you look over the world through a course 
of ages till the last generation, to find a papistical power 
giving to a civil community the form of a republic. 
The freedom of England is for ever associated with 



11 

Protestantism. Germany has more freedom than 
Austria, Italy, and Spain, because there Cathohcism has 
in a measure ceased to have the ascendant. In France, 
the inveterate hatred of Cathohc usurpations and super- 
stitious inventions and abuses led to the premature and 
unnatural formation of a republic. A dire responsibihty 
rests on the Catholic Church for driving the people of 
France at the close of the last century into irifidelity, 
and even Atheism. (Appendix B.) 

The career of this nation was due to its origin under 
Protestant influences. How marked the difference 
between the United States and South America ! Even 
intelligent men scarcely know the names of the coun- 
tries in the southern part of this continent, while the 
flag of the United States is known as a familiar ensign 
in every harbor of the globe. 

In resuming the Hue of thought with which this dis- 
course commenced, it may be stated that the country of 
North America, about the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
tury (in 1754), became of sufficient importance to form 
a matter of earnest contention between England and 
France. In the war thus ensuing, the EngUsh colonists 
acquired considerable skill in the use of arms, and fos- 
tered that military spirit which was destined to manifest 
its depth and power in a desperate straggle with the 
mother country. This struggle was precipitated by the 
cruel indiscretion of some English soldiers at Lexington. 
The war from this date (1775) may be said to have 
begun — a war the result of which was, in the course of 
events, to give rise to the great American Republic. 
The battles of Bunker Hill, of Trenton, of Princeton, 



12 

the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga, the battle of the 
Covvpens, the siege of ^iTorktown, and the surrender of 
CornwaUis, gave to this country independence and 
peace. 

But the peace was soon to be broken. Within 
thirty years the British and Americans, who ought to 
have been brethren, met in hostile array on land and 
sea. The battles of Queenstown and Lundy's Lane 
on the northern frontier, and the defence of New 
Orleans, demonstrated that if military skill and courage 
be the test, the descendants of Europeans in America 
will bear comparison with their ancestors in their palm- 
iest days. But it was on the ocean that the Americans 
won the most astounding victories. America dared to 
meet Britannia " on the mountain wave" and along 
the pathway of the deep, and the event showed that 
her confidence was not misplaced. Victory succeeded 
victory, fleet conquered fleet, and ship conquered ship, 
with such uniformity, that the suggestion of chance as 
an explanation of the occurrence, might be passed by 
in contemptuous silence. The contest lasting for three 
years, gave place to a settled and durable peace, which 
it is hoped will ever remain unbroken. May Great 
Britain and the United States move hand in hand as 
brethren in the regeneration of the world ! 

In taking a retrospective glance now at the portion 
of our history to which our attention has been directed, 
several points of interest rise into view. 

First, our intelligent, virtuous ancestry was an ines- 
timable blessing. A kind providence contemplating 
great events, brought originally to these shores a people, 



13 

wise, learned, pious, trained to look boldly at principles, 
and strike out new forms of civil government. They 
loved freedom, and they determined to enjoy it, and 
leave it as a legacy to their children. For this they 
were willing to toil and strive in battle — and die. A 
second point of interest in our review, is the escape of 
this country from the mighty despotism of Britain by a 
successful revolution. Such an issue must have seemed 
ai first impossible. How could a few colonists cope 
with the indomitable might of the greatest empire of 
the globe? But the United States achieved their inde- 
pendence, and still keep it. 

A third point of interest is the success of American 
arms on the ocean. The mistress of the seas was 
forced, by repeated disasters, to acknowledge the acti- 
vity, energy, and prowess of our infant navy. In the 
origin of this nation, and in the course along which it 
has been conducted, we see in light as clear as that of 
the sun, the proofs of a guiding, favoring Providence. 
Events were shaped for our advantage by an invisible, 
mighty hand. It becomes us to acknowledge distinctly 
and devoutly the hand of God in our history. God has 
made us a great nation. 

From the year 1775 to the present, as a nation, we 
have been moving forward in a steady progress towards 
an unknown height of grandeur. In 1783 we assumed, 
with the consent of the world, " the separate and equal 
station among the powers of the earth, to which the 
laws of nature and of nature's God entitled us." (Z>e- 
claidt.on of Independence.) In 1815 we stood boldly 
forth among the chief nations of the earth. It was then 



14 

evident that we were a people destined to possess great- 
ness, and exert a wide-controlling influence. Since 
that period we have been expanding our wide territory, 
and attracting more and more of the attention of 
remote empires and kingdoms. 

Within a few short years our national resources and 
just expectations have been presented in new manifest- 
ations, which have filled oar own minds with astonish- 
ment, and drawn forth unusual admissions from foiuigu 
statesmen. It marked an era for this country when 
Sir Robert Peel, in speaking of it on the floor of 
the House of Commons, described it as " that great 
country, the United States." Intelligent statesmen 
must have known it before, but Sir Robert Peel, with 
graceful candor, publicly acknowledged it. We shall 
certainly be pardoned by foreigners in distant countries, 
if we feel our vanity excited, and sufler an expression of 
exultation to steal over our countenances as we gaze 
with patriotic pride on the sublime spectacle which the 
United States now presents, bounded as they now are 
on the east by the Atlantic, and on the west by the 
Pacific ocean. Our fellow-citizens are now occupying 
the western slope of this vast continent, as our fathers 
peopled the Atlantic seaboard. Already a new State 
exists on the Pacific. Several Territories are there 
marked out by legislative decree, soon to be transformed 
into States, and send their senators and representatives 
to the Federal Capital. This condition of things will 
peremptorily demand the means of speedy communica- 
tion between the old States on the Atlantic and in the 
Mississippi Valley, and the new States lying far towards 



15 



the setting sun, within sound of (he loud murmur pro- 
duced by the broad waves of the Pacific ocean as thev 
roll in upon the shore, and break, at intervals, with 
startling violence. At first the swift steamship will rush 
to the Isthmus, and from the western side of the 
Isihmus northward to the sister States of this Republic: 
but ere long the steam whistle will be heard on the 
prairies, and in the deep primeval forests of the national 
domain. A bond of iron will unite the East with the 
West. The soul kindles into strange fervency at the 
contemplation of the scenes which now open upon our 
view. The great highway of nations is to lie across 
the territory of the United States. Intelligence and 
commercial wealth destined for England and all parts 
of Europe, will forsake the old route by the Cape of 
Good Hope and through the Mediterranean, and be 
conveyed across this continent. The British Posses- 
sions in the East are to receive new value through the 
growth of this nation, and the changes involved in that 
growth. 

On these prospects the eye of the statesman may 
rest with increasing interest ; but there are other pros- 
pects which possess an equal fascination for the Chris- 
tian and the enhghtened philanthropist. A more 
frequent and closer intercourse is to be established 
between Christian and pagan countries. Of this we 
already have the indication in the colonization of the 
Chinese in the S ate of California. The subjects of 
the Middle Kingdom " have received on a public occa- 
sion portions of the Scriptures in the Chinese language 
at San Francisco." 



16 

It will be henceforth impossible to maintain the 
framework which has kept the Chinese separate from 
all other nations. Commerce and Christianity will 
work revolutions in the vast millions of Eastern Asia. 

The Islands of the Pacific are to acquire greater 
importance in the general wide-spread changes now in 
progress among tbem. May civilization and (.Ihristi- 
anitj difiuse among them their ennobling influences ! In 
giving utterance to these sentiments and in venturing to 
cherish them, it is assumed that a pure Christianity will 
prevail over that which is false, — that truth, as God 
revealed it, will subdue error as men choose to hold it. 
Should truth and a pure Protestant Christianity not 
prevail, confusion and misery are the sure doom of the 
nations. Civ^il freedom will be first restrained and then 
loaded \\\{h fetters. An oppressive legitimacy will bear 
sway, and ecclesiastical and political despotism will 
form with each other a dread league of amity. It must 
now be confessed that our national firmament is not 
entirely free from clouds. There are dark masses along 
the horizon from which the lightning may break with 
fatal violence. 

Why does Papal Rome at the present moment wear 
such a look of hope and exultation as we see gleaming 
upon her brow ? Why have all signs of depression 
ceased, and been replaced by an expression of undis- 
guised Joyousness? Are there deep laid scheujes, the 
result of which is anticipated by Rome as a glorious 
triumph \ And is the Papacy to inedominate as in the 
dark ages, and lord it over the consciences and souls of 
men \ Woe, woe, to the world if it be so ! Behold 



17 

the movement in England re-establishing the Romish 
hierarchy which Henry VIII. destroyed, and connect 
with this the bold statement by Bishop Hughes that 
Protestantism is on the wane, and consider the still 
holder declaration of Dr. Ryder that the Jesuits are to be 
revered for their purity and usefulness. The goodness 
of Jesuitism provokes a smile ! (Note C, Appendix.) 
According to Bishop Hughes Protestantism is only a 
transient outbreak, a mere unsightly excrescence with- 
out inherent life, or power of self-maintenance. But 
when he tells us of the decline of Protestantism in 
France, surely his recollection of history failed him. 
Did Protestantism die of itself in France ? Did con- 
sumj)tion seize upon it and cause it to waste away ? 
Did Bishop Hughes ever hear of a certain massacre in 
Paris on the eve of St. Bartholomew's day ? (August 
24th, 1572.) Was not the slaughter of 30,000 Protes- 
tants in Paris and France an event which would go 
far to account for the decline of French Protestantism ? 
Pope Gregory XHI. deemed it a most joyful event, 
as he celebrated it in the church of Minerva by a 
solemn mass, and afterwards made it the occasion of a 
jubilee throughout Christendom. If the muse of history 
never condescended to inform Bishop Hughes of St. 
Bartholomew's day, August 24th, 1572, and the treach- 
erous and bloody work then perpetrated by Catholics 
on Protestants, she has not failed to whisper some infor- 
malion of this to every intelligent Protestant in the 
world. But the Protestant church in France suffered 
still more deeply and dreadfully in the reign of Louis 
XIV. when the Edict of Nantes was revoked (1685). 

2 



18 

(Note D, Appendix.) As the grand step in a course of 
inhuman oppression and butchery might not, it may be 
asked without presumption, the loss of half a miUlon 
of French Protestant Christians affect in some degree 
the cause of Protestantism in France ? And yet Bishop 
Hughes appeals to the history of Protestantism in 
France to show that Protestantism has no inherent life, 
no soul. With the same rigorous means CathoUcism 
or Protestantism might be hunted out of the United 
States and of any country in Europe.* Suppose the 
logic of sword and fagot were so unsparingly employed 
in England that half a million of Romanists were slain 
and exiled, would not Catholicism feel the blow, and 
suffer a " decline ?" Unless statistics are grievously at 
fault there would not be a single Papist left in Eng- 
land, from the Tweed to Land's End. If there be 
new vitality now in the old trunk of the Papacy, in any 
degree in proportion to the elation of feeling manifested 
by Bishop Hughes and others, this state of things is due 
in part to the general indifference among Protestants in 
regard to their distinguishing and noble principles, and 
in far greater part to the high churchism of which 
many boast who belong to the Episcopal denomination 
in England and the United States. The treachery of 
some Protestants — especially of some Protestant minis- 
ters — has inspired Rome with unbounded confidence of 
approaching triumphs. The proof is at hand (" Morn- 
ings among Jesuits at Rome") to show that the Jesuits 
at Rome profess to know of a wide defection in England 

* Stern, inhuman persecution, to the extremity of absolute extermination, pre- 
vented the spread of the Reformation in Italy and Spain. (Note E, Appendix.) 



19 

among the established clergy. If this be true, if such 
defection does exist and in part only meets the public 
eye, then the final resort must be had to the 'pco])le, to 
the LAITY as distinct from the clergy, thus showing the 
value of that fundamental Protestant principle, the right 
and duty of ^^ people to possess the Scriptures in their 
own language, and read them, and ^o judge of all <\oq- 
tx'mes founded on the Wo?'d of God. 

In thus referring to anti-Protestant principles and 
feeling as a cloud upon the poUtical sky which over- 
hangs our country, and a sign adverse to our national 
prosperity, the rule of judgment has been this, — that we 
can only prosper as a free j^eopie. To such prosperity 
an ecclesiastical despotism cannot cordially and of choice 
contribute. Romanism has ever on emergency (Gulzot 
on Civilization) sided with political despotism.* 

But there may be a show of love for freedom (by- 
Roman Cathohc bishops and others) in a country like 
this, where democracy is deemed sacred by the mass of 
the people. Through the forms of the extremest liberty 
the designs against liberty can be most effectually accom- 
plished. When pohtical Jesuitism speaks to our people, 
therefore, you will find an advocacy of freedom to the 
utmost extent. Have we not from time to time already 
heard the wily priest claiming to be the apostle of 
Uberty \\ And is it possible in the nature of things that 

* •' But when the question of political securities came into debate between power 
and liberty ; when any step was taken to establish a system of permanent insti- 
tutions whicli might effectually protect liberty from the invasions of power in 
general, the Church (Catholic) always ranged itself on the side of despotism." 
—Guizot, 138. 

t " In times gone by Jesuitism sought to rule the world by pushing itself nearer 



20 

su h sentiments and views can be uttered with sin- 
cerity 1 Must they not be connected with a hidden 
design I The Romish hierarchy is a despotism. The 
member of the Jesuitical Society is sworn to obey the 
dictum of his captain-general, and can the lover of 
ecclesiastical and Jesuitical despotism love civil liherty 1 
The laws of the human mind answer, No ! If it be said 
that the number of Roman Catholics is comparatively 
small, and hence, supposing them to be unfriendly to 
political freedom, they can do no great harm in this 
country ; the reply is, their number may become formi- 
dable in a contested election when an unprincipled poli- 
tical demagogue will engage to favor them on condition 
that their assistance be granted him in the accomplish- 
ment of his ambitious designs. 

But there is no wish to magnify their power of evil 
and their hostile will. Let the people, of this country 
understand their principles, and thence reason on what 
must inevitably be their influence when it can be fully 
exerted, and there is no danger which need appal us. 

There is a danger far greater than any which has 
been mentioned. The danger above described is future, 
perhaps remote — this to which allusion is now made is 
nis'h., and well fitted to awaken immediate dread. You 
can scarcely be at a loss to understand the bearing of 

:md nearer still to thrunes ; or by actually edging; itself on to seals of power. 
But in times to come, as we may imagine, it will seek to compass the same 
design by shouldering the moh forward in every popular assault upon thrones. So 
locg as monarchies re5ted solidly in their places upon the field of Europe, the 
Jesuit Society wished to i-tand upon the same terra firma, but now that this 
y;round trembles beneath the foot, it will commend itself upon its own raft to the 
mighty deep — tlie ' many waters — the people !' " — Taylor's Loyola, 371. 



21 

the remark just made. But that there may be no mis- 
apprehension, let it be fairly and openly stated that 
slave7-y is now causing sectional divisions, and exciting 
deep and bitter feelings of hostility and enmity between 
the North and the South. In the length and breadth of 
the North there is not in all probability an individual 
who may be regarded as an advocate of slavery. It is 
known to be an evil, and as such in the abstract is con- 
demned. 

Perhaps on the abstract question the South would 
agree with the North. But slavery in the South is not 
an abstract question ; it is something which exists ; 
s,omei\\m^ lialpahle ; something difficult to manage and 
remove. 

The true view to be taken of the people of the 
South by us is that they are in a most uv fortunate 
situation. Slavery has a foothold amongst them, and 
enters as a constituent element into their social and 
political fabric. The present generation of men did 
not originate slavery, it becomes us to remember— 
they found it fastened on them by their ancestors. At 
the time of its origin it was not deemed so great an evil 
as it is now known to be. Religion was pleaded for 
it — since the Africans were a heathen people, and if 
made slaves were to be introduced into a Christian 
country and be within reach of Christian influences. 
(Note F, Appendix.) 

The opinion of slavery in New England in the early 
colonial times may be learned from two facts : first. Gov. 
Winthrop mentions Indian slaves among his bequests ; 
and secondly, "the articles of the early New England 



22 

confederacy class persons among the spoils of war." 
(Bancroft, vol. i. p. 168.) 

But slavery sf)on ceased, it may be said, perhaps, in 
the Northern States. Ah ! the pure and deep benevo- 
lence of the North set the slaves free because they could 
not endure the sight of bondage. On this subject hear 
what is said by Bancroft, who may be safely trusted as 
an impartial historian on the subject of slavery (vol. iii. 
p. 407). 

" The physical constitution of the negro decided his 
home in the New World : he loved the sun ; even the 
climate of Virginia was too chill for him. His labor, 
therefore, increased in value as he proceeded South ; and 
hence the relation of master and slave came to be effectu- 
ally a Southern institution ; to the Southern colonies 
mainly Providence intrusted the guardianshipand the 
education of the colored race." ( Note G, Appendix.) 

So writes the historian of New England. Accord- 
ingly, self interest at the North abolished slavery — self 
interest and not pure benevolence. It becomes the peo- 
ple at the North then. In candor towards the facts of 
history, to remember that slavery ceased in this region 
because it was 2f??^r^/«Z>/e. Had it been profitable, and 
hence had it become an essential part of our apolitical 
system, it is likely it would have remained to this day. 
{Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 171.) 

The same historian (vol. iii. p. 408) thus describes the 
improvement of the African in a state of slavery in this 
country : " The concurrent testimony of tradition 
represents the negroes at their arrival to have been gross 
and stupid, having memory and physical strength, but 



23 

undisciplined in the exercise of reason and imagination. 
Their organization seemed analogous to their barbarism. 
But at the end of a generation all observers affn-med the 
marked progress of the Negro American. In the 
midst of the horrors of slavery and the slave trade, the 
masters had at least performed the office of advancing 
and civilizing the negro." 

Having thus seen the representation given by Mr. 
Bancroft concerning the connexion of slavery with 
Southern institutions, we may turn to behold for a mo- 
ment the views expressed concerning slavery in J 787 
by members of the Convention which formed the pre- 
sent Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Sherman of Connecticut (Wed. Aug. 22d, 
1787, Madison Papers, vol. iii. p. 1390) said, " He disap- 
proved of the slave trade ; yet as the States were now 
possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public 
good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it 
was expedient to have as few objections as possible to 
the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best 
to leave the matter as we find it. He observed the 
abolition of slavery to be going on in the United States, 
and that the good sense of the several states would pro- 
bably by degrees complete it." Mr. Sherman was fol- 
lowed by Col. Mason of Virginia, who used in debate 
this strong language — the more valuable now as showing 
the complexion of Southern feeling in 1787 — "This 
infernal traffic," said Col. Mason, " (slave trade) origin- 
ated in the avarice of British merchants. {Bancroft, 
vol. iii. pp. 232, 402,412,414.) The British Government 
constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop 



24 

to it. Maryland and Virginia," he said, "had ah-eady 
prohibited the importation of slaves expressly." He 
thus described the pernicious effects of slavery. " Sla- 
very discourages arts and manufactures. The poor 
despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent 
the emigration of whites, who really enrich and 
strengthen a country. They produce the most perni- 
cious effects on manners. Every master of slaves is 
born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of 
heaven on a country : as nations cannot be rewarded or 
punished in the next world, they must be in this. By 
an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence 
punishes national sins by national calamities. He 
lamented that some of our Eastern hrethren had, from 
a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. He 
held it essential in every point of view, that the General 
Government should have the power to prevent the 
increase of Slavery." Mr. Ellsworth -of Connecticut 
said, " Let us not intermeddle. As population increases 
poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slavery use- 
less." Mr. Pinckney and General Pinckney of South 
Carolina contended for the right of imiwrting slaves. 
Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts thought, " we had nothing 
to do with the conduct of States, but ought to be careful 
not to give any sanction to it." Mr. Gouverneur Morris 
of Pa. wished the w hole subject to be committed, includ- 
ing the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a 
navigation act. " These things may form a bargain 
among: the Northern and Southern States." " Mr. Sher- 
man said it was better to let the Southern States import 
slaves than to part with them (the States), if they made 



25 

it a sine qua iion. He was opposed to a tax on slaves 
imported as making the matter worse, because it implied 
thej were property" {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. p. 139G.) 

From the sketch of the debate now given, we 
may learn the tone of feeling in 1787 on the subject 
of slavery at the North and at the South. The views 
of gentlemen at the North and at the South resemble 
those which now prevail in the same sections of our 
country ; but this difference is discernible — the absence 
of bitter feehng on the part of Northern men towards 
their brethren of the South who claimed the right of 
upholding slavery. 

Several suggestions now arise on a review of the 
debate just presented. First : ]\Ioral considerations 
had some weight with the members of the Convention 
from the North — in their judgment of slavery ; but there 
were other considerations less worthy. Secondly : 
Several Southern States wished the continuance of the 
slave trade from its utility rather than from any view 
of it as right and good. Thirdly: Even Southern men 
contemplated it as an evil which was in time to be 
removed. Fourthly : I'he Constitution was adopted 
by men who saw slavery in all its bearings, its effects, 
and demerits, and hence was adopted on a principle of 
compromise. The North did not trample on the South, 
and the South did not prevail against the North. If 
slavery was important to some of the States, the feeling 
was that it might exist rather than prevent the compre- 
hension of all the people of the States into one great 
nation. Fifthly : The Constitution was formed amid 
difficulties, and jarring and conflicting sectional interests. 



26 

A happy illustration of tliis may be found in the speech 
made by Frankhn before the Convention in expressing 
his views in favor of the Constitution which had been 
deliberately adopted. {Mad. Pajpers, vol. iii. p. ] 696.) 

He said, " there were some parts of the Constitution 
of which he did not approve, but agreed to the Consti- 
tution with all its faults, if they were such, because he 
thought a General Government to be necessary." He 
added, " I doubt, too, whether any other Convention ive 
can obtain, will be able to make a better Constitution. 
He continued, " Much of the strength and efficiency of 
any Government in procuring and securing happiness 
to the people depends on opinion, — on the general 
opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as 
the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, 
therefore, for our own sakes as a part of the people, and 
for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unani- 
mously in recommending this Constitution (if approved 
by Congress, and confirmed by the Conventions), wher- 
ever our influence may extend, and turn our future 
thought and endeavors to the means of having it well 
administered." So spake Benjamin Franklin, whose 
last public act was to sign a memorial to Congress as 
President of an Abolition Society. 

That the members of the Convention of 1787 felt a 
solemn responsibility resting upon them, must be appar- 
ent to all acquainted with the history of our country. 
Slavery was acknowledged and felt to be an evil that 
ought to be removed, and which, according to their 
expectations, would be removed in the progress of time. 
Northern men, feeling the impotence of such a confede- 



27 

ration among the States as had existed, and the 
necessity of a Constitutional Union and a controlling 
General Government, did not deem themselves war- 
ranted to separate from the Sonth on the question of 
Slavery, and, therefore, they gave their consent to the 
Constitution as it now stands. That Constitution may 
not be perfect, as was said by Frankhn, but it was pro- 
bably the best, which, all things considered, could be 
formed. Such as it was, its formation tasked the wis- 
dom of the Fathers of the RepubHc then living. At 
one period Benjamin Frankhn, under the pressure of 
extreme difficulties, exclaimed, that God governed in the 
affairs of men, and, therefore, moved that prayer should 
daily be offered in the Convention for his aid and 
direction, before proceeding to the business demanding 
its attention. {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. pp. 984, 5.) This 
motion was not sustained, but its being made is proof 
to us of the exigency in which one of the wisest of our 
country's sons judged the Convention to be placed. 
(Note H, Appendix.) 

Comparing the present with the past, we find slavery 
as a cause of division between the North and the South 
vastly augmented. The prevailing fear among certain 
members of the Convention was that the Constitution 
contained elements tending to monarchy. In this fear 
Bonjamin Franklin participated. {Mad. Papers, vol. ii. 
p. 790.) George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Vir- 
ginia feared that the power of Congress was excessive, 
and would grow into a despotism. 

But did George Washington feel no scruples in 
regard to the Constitution, or did he give to it his full 



2S 

consent 1 George Washington, the President of the 
Convention, spoke o)ice only with a view to direct the 
action of the body over which he presided, and on that 
one occasion expressed his wish that there might be a 
representative for every 30,000 of the population, 
instead of one to every 40,000, but said not a word on 
the subject of slavery. {Mad. Papers, vol. iii. p. 1599.) 
The amendment proposed was made by a unanimous 
vote. 

The Constitution thus formed with much labor and 
wisdom, and by men of distinguished ability, moral worth, 
and zeal for civil liberty, has directed our national 
afTairs for more than sixty years, and will any one say, 
the nation has not enjoyed prosperity and liberty under 
our General Government? Imperfection in some legisla- 
tive acts and measures there may have been, and so 
there are spots in the sun. But the fears of Franklin 
and others about a desj)otism have thus far proved 
groundless. Our republican institutions will probably 
remain as they are unless divisions, factions, and civil 
war should exalt a successful soldier to a dangerous 
height, and give him the power of holding and wield- 
ing an iron sceptre. 

The mention of divisions, factions, and civil war 
excites doubtless, in the minds of us all, the recollection 
of recent events during the late session of Congress, 
and the subsequent agitation in regard to slavery in 
certain portions of the church and in several of the 
States. 

That Christian men, professing to fear God and 
revere his ordinances, should have pursued the course 



29 



adopted by them is cause of humiliation and profound 
regret. It is feared they cannot escape the charge of 
expressing a seditious spirit, and abetting sedition, 
which, once in action, may proceed to lengths \Ahich 
would stain the land with blood. May that God who, 
as Franklin, on a memorable occasion, said, "governs 
in the affairs of men," maintain peace and order 
throughout our borders ! 

The opponents of slavery profess a devoted zeal for 
the cause of humanity, and an ardent desire for the 
w^elfare of the colored race. They consider the slaves 
at the South as an oppressed and suffering people, and 
hence they are led to seek their emancipation, and 
through their emancipation, their true interest and wel- 
fare. As has already been stated in this discourse, 
there are no advocates of slavery at the North. We all 
desire men to be free. 

But some require the immediate liberation of all the 
slaves in the country, and others tliink the hberation 
should be gradual, allowing p*-eparation to be made by 
the slaves themselves for their self-support in a state of 
freedom. The latter class think that many of the 
slaves, destitute of forethought, and accustomed to only 
one kind of labor, would fail to obtain a livelihood 
when thrown on their own resources ; and, therefore, 
ought not, out of regard to their true xcelfare, to be at 
once set free. These men would be satisfied if they 
could see measures for prospective freedom in the 
Southern States. Such measures Tiios. Jefferson con- 
sidered in the highest degree important, as we may 
judge from the fact, that in an enumeration of acts per- 



30 

formed by liim, tending to benefit his fellow-citizens 
and posterity, he named the part he had taken against 
the perpetuity of slavery in Virginia. (Compare Note 
G, p. 143, vol. i., with page 40 Jefferson's Works.) 

The political question to which slavery gives rise is 
one of great difficulty. If the subject were viewed 
in thed, the South would agree with the North in stating 
the doctrine of freedom as it is found in our Declaration 
of Independence — "We hold these truths to be self- 
evident : that all men are created equal — that they are 
endowed by their Creator with inahenable rights — that 
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness," But slavery in this country is politically compli- 
cated and interwoven with a variety of interests. Such 
as it is, it is the joint ivork of the North and the South. 
In Jefferson's remarks on the proceedings of Congress 
in regard to the orisinal drauo;ht of the Declaration of 
Independence {Jeff. Works, vol. i. pp. J 5 and 19), he 
states that the clause relating to the slave trade "was 
stricken out in complaisance to S. Carolinaand Georgia," 
but adds, " Our Northern hrethren also, 1 believe, /cV/; a 
little tender on these censures, for though their people had 
very few slaves themselves, yet they had been irretty con- 
siderable carriers of them, to othei's!' The clause above 
mentioned, and which was struck out of the declaration, 
was as follows : — " He (the king of Great Britain) has 
waged a cruel war against human nature itself, violating 
its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons 
of a distant people who never offended him, captivating 
and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, 
or to incur miserable death in their transportation 



31 



thither. This piratical waif are, the opprobrium of 
Infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of 
Great Britain. Determined to keep open market where 
men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his 
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to pro- 
hibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that 
this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distin- 
guished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise 
in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which 
he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom 
he also obtruded them ; thus paying off former crimes 
committed against the liberties of one people with 
crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives 
of another." Such just and noble sentiments as these 
were held by Jefferson, and many others of those who 
composed the Congress of 1776. 

To the extract given above, it is proper to subjoin 
another. {Jeff. Works, vol. i. pp. 39, 40.) " The bill on 
the subject of slaves (Assembly of Va.) was a mere 
digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any 
intnnation of a plan for a future and general emancipa- 
tion. It was thought better that this should be kept 
hack, and attempted only by way of amendment, when- 
ever the bill should be brought on. The principles of 
the amendment, however, were agreed on, that is to 
say the freedom of all horn after a certain day, and 
deportation at a proper age. But it was found that 
the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor 
will it bear it even at this day (1821) ; and yet the day 
is not distant when it must hear and adopt it, or icorse 
will follow. Nothing is more certainly wruten in the 



32 

book oi fate, than that these people are to he free; nor 
is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot 
live under the same government. Nature, habit, opi- 
nion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between 
them. It is still in our power to direct the process of 
emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such 
slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, 
and their place be pari passu filled up by free white 
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, 
human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. 
We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish 
deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedeyit 
would fall far short of our case." Language of this 
tenor is extremely rare now, if indeed it exists at all 
among Southern statesmen. Statesmen and private 
citizens there are who might use it and would, if they 
were to give utterance to their reflections and convic- 
tions, but they feel in the present emergency compelled 
to silence. As they are reduced to silence, so they are 
almost prevented from exerting any active influence to 
diminish and ultimately remove the evil of slavery. 

The state of restraint here mentioned is the result of 
declarations and movements by zealous and extreme 
abolitionists who denounce the South, and pour forth 
curses on the slaveholder. 

These men, in their mad proceedings (to say the 
least), violate all the rules and principles of rhetorical 
philosophy. With defamation for argument, with slan- 
der and abuse for persuasion, and ribaldry and scorn 
and curses for pathos, how can they ever hope to gain 
the ear and sway the judgment of the South ? South- 



■MMEMHk. -MMMtai^MIIM 



OUE COUNTRY, 



OUR COUNTEY'S CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. 



DISCOURSE 

DELIVERED ON THANKSGIVING DAY, 
DECEMBER 12th, 1850, 



CHELSEA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW YORK, 



EDWARD DUNLAP SMITH, D.D. 



PUBLISHED BT REQUEST. 



-11 the 
'ill saj 
3 aid of 



i 



NEW YORK: 

ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS, 285 BROADWAY, 



1851. 

R Cr&ighead, Printer aud Slereotypcr, 112 Fulton slreot,N. Y. 



33 



ern men must be more slavish than their own slaves to 
yield meekly to the favorite appeals of abolitionists. It 
is not in human natm-e to do it On the contrary, they 
will be exasperated, and repay scorn with scorn, and 
add to the restrictions which already bind the slaves, 
and make broad declarations about rendering slavery 
perpetual. Were Jefferson alive at this day to witness 
what is familiar to us, instead of writing as he did, and 
assuming an attitude in opposition to slavery, it is more 
than probable that he would take part with the South 
against the roge, and abuse, and slander of Northern 
abolitionists. 

In the ranks of abolition are to be found unquestion- 
ably so7ne benevolent, pure minded men, who love God, 
and love all that is humane and generous,— but there 
are others, destitute of all reverence for God^s revealed 
ivord. If it suits their purpose, they will quote the 
Bible ; and if the Bible is against them, they will scorn 
its authority. On the subject of slavery they will take 
a passage from Deuteronomy, and treat it as laying 
down the law for all nations and ages; but on the 
subject of capital punishment the same men will say 
that " they can judge for themselves without the aid of 
anij book (allusion is made to the Bible) whatever." 
Some of them will not scruple to deny the inspiration 
of the Scriptures, and thus transform Christianity into 
a refined Deism. 

But the Bible is quoted against the Fugitive Slave 
Bill passed at the last session of Congress, by students 
of the Scriptures, by ministers and Christians, by good, 
well meaning persons who seek the welfare of mankind. 



34 

The passage which has become celebrated for the fre- 
quent appeals to it, is found in Deut. xxiii, 15 and 16, and 
is in these words : " Thou shah not dehver unto his 
master the servant which is escaped from his master 
unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, 
in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy 
gates which it liketh him best, thou shalt not oppress 
him." This passage is often quoted by extreme aboli- 
tionists, as if it were as simple as a drop of rain, and 
as decisive in their favor as a sign from heaven. Now 
to form a just estimate of this passage as respects its 
weight and worth in the present controversy carried on 
in our country, the proper course is to refer to interpret- 
ations of a previous date, and by persons under no bias 
to distort the truth. Such interpretations are easily 
obtained from a variety of sources. The five now to 
be mentioned are taken from Pool's synopsis {Synopsis 
criticoru?n, Sfc.) : — 1. " Thou shalt riot deliver to his 
master a servant to be unjustly molested, until his anger 
abates, when the master seeks to kill or mutilate him ;" 
" Thou shalt not dehver a slave to his master on his 
bare demand without evidence of the justness of his 
claim." 2. " A price shall publicly be given to the 
master for the servant" 3. " Perhaps in this manner 
God manifests his displeasure against slavery, as the 
laws of Moses favor liberty, Ex. xxi." 4. "It treats of 
a foreign (heathen master), and thus the land of Israel 
was an asylum, where slaves embracing the true religion 
might find security. This is said to be justified on the 
ground that the Canaanites were devoted to destruction, 
and all that they had was given to the Israelites. The 



35 



ancients say further (with great probability of truth, 
Pool thinks), that a Canaanitish slave escaping from his 
Jewish master, while living out of Judea, was not to 
be restored to him." 5. "The 15th verse can be 
rendered, — ' Thou shalt not hide, or secure a slave 
from his master, but shalt keep him that he may be 
delivered up when a demand to that effect is made.' " 
"The 16th verse (He shall dwell with thee, &c.) seems 
to favor the fourth interpretation (a slave escaping from 
a heathen master, or a Jew living in a heathen country), 
but may be expounded to mean (1st interpretation), 
that a slave should be protected against the cruel wrath 
of his master." 

Bishop Patrick, in his Commentary, makes these 
remarks — " The Hebrew doctors understand this of a 
servant of another nation who was become a Jew; 
whoui his master, if he went to dwell out of Judea, 
might not carry along with him against his will ; and if 
he fled from him when he had carried him, he might not 
be delivered to him, but suffered to dwell in the land of 
Israel. Which they understood also of a servant that 
fled from his master out of any of the countries of the 
Gentiles into the land of Israel, which was to be a safe 
refuge for him." (His authority is Selden, hb. vi. 
De Jure Nat. et Gent., juxta discip. Hebr., cap. viii. p. 
711.) 

Scott, the commentator, thus speaks on this passage : 
— " We cannot suppose that this law required the 
Israelites to entertain slaves who had robbed their mas- 
ters or left their masters without cause, but such only 
as were cruelly treated, and fled to them for protection, 



36 

especially from the neighboring nations. To such they 
were commanded to afford shelter and show great 
kindness, both in order to recommend their religion, 
and to give them an opportunity of learning it." (No 
authority quoted.) 

Jalm, in his ArchcEology (sec. 171, p. 183), says — 
" A slave who had fled from another nation, and sought 
a refuge among the Hebrews, was to be received and 
treated with kindness, and not to be forcibly returned 
back again." 

Let the question now be asked, whether these con- 
flicting interpretations do not conclusively show that 
this celebrated, oft-quoted passage, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, is 
appealed to with too much confidence by the opponents 
of the Fugitive Slave bill, as apiMcahle to the circum- 
stances in which ice find ourselves in this country ? 
From their manner of appealing to it, you might sup- 
pose the Mosaic polity sought to abolish slavery ; but 
so far from doing it, it merely legislated in regard to it 
with a humane view to diminish the evils of slavery. 
Native Israelites, Hebrews of the Hebrews, might be 
slaves for six years, and even by consent, for life. 
They might become slaves in payment of debt, 2 Kings 
iv. 1. As regards men of Gentile origin in general, 
they could be held in perpetual bondage. 

Does the Mosaic polity favor the abolitionists who 
pronounce slavery in all circumstances a sin in itself? 
How can those men approve of the laws of Moses ? 
how can they avoid censuring them 1 But the Mosaic 
polity was theocratic, and hence the censure passed on 
that touches the divine Legislator. Will they accuse 



37 

God of indifFereiice towards human rights and human 
freedom 1 

Those men who take the position, as many at the 
present day in our country boldly do, that a civil con- 
stitution which alloivs slavery to exist is unjit to stand, 
is so contrary to the divine laws as to deserve in any 
way to be frustrated and destroyed, have a delicate and 
difficult task to perform. They declare the Mosaic 
institutions tinwortluj of a place in the world. They 
affix to those institutions the stigma of dishonor. But 
as they feel bound to set themselves in array against a 
civil constitution that authorizes slavery, do they not 
virtually blame Jesus Christ and the apostles for want 
of lofty principle and sublime moral daring in not con- 
demning slavery in the most open and public manner, 
and declaring its sanction by any man proof against 
his piety \ It is not easy to see how the extreme 
abolitionists of this day can call Christ master, or be 
wilhng to follow the teachings of apostles and inspired 
men. Did Jesus Christ excite sedition against the 
Jewish or Roman government on account of the exist- 
ence of slavery ? Did Paul say, that Christian men, 
men of high and pure moral principle, owed to the 
Roman government no allegiance, and were authorized 
to treat its laws as a nullity, because that government 
allowed a most galling and oppressive slavery {Ban- 
croft, vol. i. p. 161). Hear his language on the duty of 
Christians in the Roman Empire to that Empire — for he 
has spoken distinctly upon this very subject, Rom. xiii. 
1 : — « Let every soul (man) be subject unto the higher 
powers. For there is no power but of God : the 



38 

powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever 
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordmance of 
God." It gives significance to this language to know 
who sat on the imperial throne at the time the epistle 
to the Romans was written. Who was then the 
Roman Emperor? Nero, the cruel, hloody Nero, the 
man who Ji7-st enacted laws against the church of 
Christ. And yet Paul says, that the civil government 
of Rome, administered by such a man as Nero, was 
entitled to obedience. 

But the teaching addressed by abolitionists to the 
slaves themselves is very different from that which 
formed part of Paul's inspired apostohc ministry. The 
abolitionists say that a slave should strive for his free- 
dom, and is authorized in doing so to slay his master 
if necessary. Hear the teaching of Paul, 1 Tim. vi. 1, 
2 : — "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count 
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name 
of God and his doctrine he not blasphemed. And they 
that have believing masters, let them not despise them 
because they are brethren ; but rather do them service 
because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the 
benefit. These things teach and exhort!' Whitby (an 
English, not a prejudiced American, divine) thus para- 
phrases the passage quoted : — " Let as many servants 
as are under the yoke (of bondage to the heathen^ count 
their own masters as worthy of all {due) honor, that 
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed 
{or evil spoken of, as tending to dissolve those civil obli- 
gations, hut rather honored in all estates of men, as 
tending to 7nake them better in their several relations ; 



39 

Titus ii. 10 : and more subject even to hard andfroward 
masters ;" 1 Pet. ii. 18). Does not the Bible then 
favor slavery ? No. The Old Testament diminished 
the evils connected with it, though it allowed it to 
stand just as it allowed polygamy to stand ; and the 
New Testament, by its clear teaching on the law of 
kindness, and in regard to things which are just and 
equal, and its exhibition of man's immoriality and 
supreme accountability to God, set in motion mighty 
influences promotive of universal freedom. 

The difference between the doctrine of the abolition- 
ists and the doctrine of the Bible is this — that while the 
abolitionists would destroy civil government in order to 
effect their object, the Bible upholds civil government, 
while \t publishes truth and ^\x\y^o^^ persuasion, tending 
conservatively and happily to produce emancipation 
and moral goodness. Let the Bible infuse its spirit 
into all men, and the world would rejoice in liberty 
and purity. This the inhabitants of the Southern 
States should know, and of this they are to be told. 
This, too, and 7nore, they will hear, if they are properly 
approached and addressed, and hearing this, will regard 
it. Leave the South to its own view of right and duty 
— leave it to act generously, and soon, it is beheved, 
they would begin to move as the God of the Bible, and 
as the civilized world urges them, in the adoption of 
measures for the emancipation of the African race, and 
their removal to their own sunny and fertile land. 
Africa must be regarded as the proper home of Africans, 
There must they be free : there must they be enlight- 
ened ; there possess power, there be happy. In the 



40 

present state of our country, African colonization 
becomes unspeakably important, demanding (if the 
South consent) national attention and national legisla- 
tion and effort. Oh ! when shall we pay back our 
debt to Africa in sending to her her long lost sons, 
transformed into a civilized Christian race, that may 
be to her as life from the dead ! 

Agreeably to what has now been said, it appears that 
a civil government entitled to obedience may stand, 
while there is not embodied in it the entire moral sys- 
tem of the Bible. Did not the theocracy by Moses 
allow polygamy, and hence fail to establish the true 
doctrine of marriage 1 How much true Scriptural 
moral principle and truth were embodied in the impe- 
rial government of Rome when Nero reigned ! 

But God adjusted the theocracy, and gave his sanc- 
tion through Paul, Rom. xiii. 1, to the government of 
Rome so far as to jyrohibit seditmi. 

If, now, we assume that the Constitution of the 
United States does not embody the moral code of the 
Bible, shall we destroy that Constitution ? A momen- 
tous, yet, in the present crisis, a practical question. Is 
the Constitution less worthy of support and permanence 
than the government of Ancient Rome ? Does it favor 
liberty less, and the church or religion less \ These 
questions deserve consideration by those who profess to 
be guided by safe principle and by the Bible. Did not 
the civil code of Moses p-ovide for slavery from one 
end of the promised land to the other — from Anti- 
Libanus to Idumea ? Did not that code tolerate poly- 
gamy ] And did not imperial Rome persecute the 



41 



church, enact laws against it, and strive to crush it ! 
But with direct reference to that government Paul said, 
" Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God" — -Rom. xiii. 2. 

If it be said the doctrine here laid down makes pas- 
sive obedience (in all circumstances) a duty, and con- 
demns the Revolution of 1776, the answer is not — it 
does not, but it does forbid sedition. Against what do 
many extravagant, reckless men lift their sacrilegious 
hands when they seek to rend in pieces our national 
charter? Against the noblest Constitution the world 
has ever seen — a Constitution consulting to the greatest 
extent the rights and liberties of men — allowing the 
utmost freedom in preaching the Gospel, and granting 
all required protection to the Church of Christ. And 
shall such a Constitution be overthrown together with 
the government of which it is the basis ? Shall hotli 
perish 1 This Union was formed with extreme diffi- 
culty, — so many and so great were the conflicting senti- 
ments and interests of the thirteen original States. — 
{Mad. Papers, 1593, 1594, 1600, 1602.) 

The Union was judged to be desirable and necessarij, 
after experience had taught the insufficiency of the old 
Confederation. — [Jeff. Works, vol. i. 63 ; Federalist, 9, 
14, 3 8,21, &c.) 

The prosperity of this , country in the last seventy 
years has shown the importance of the Union and the 
wisdom of the Constitution. With profound sadness, 
therefore, do we hear of the Union being in danger. 
It is in danger, — no man can doubt it. And there are 
men who war against the Union, and think they do 



God service. Does God delight in strife and blood- 
shed 1 Does God desire to see brother arrajed against 
brother in civil conflict 1 That the States of this Union 
can peaceably separate from each other is scarcely 
within the compass of possibility. No ! Such separa- 
tion [)eing made, a long border stretching from the 
Atlantic, and losing itself in the west, would be the 
line of strife and bloody commotion. Courageous and 
exasperated men on the north and south of that line 
would soon meet on the battle-field. Imagination cow- 
ers and trembles to view the dire spectacle. Would 
God rejoice at it 1 Would angels hurry from remote 
spheres to find delight in the mutual butchery of bro- 
thers ? No ! Misguided men ! God would behold 
such deadly strife with retributive anger, and angels 
would hasten from it, or weep as they linger to gaze on 
it. Infernal spirits might rejoice ; the deinons of 
monarchy and legitimacy might hold a jubilee ; and all 
the leagued adversaries of freedom in Europe, from 
Russia to the point of Italy, would join in a shout and 
chorus of triumph. A blow would be struck at Repub- 
licanism which might prove fatal for ages to the liber- 
ties of mankind. — (See Note I. Appendix.) 

Are loe (of this day) only possessed of the wisdom 
to know the rights of men, or of the virtue to state 
and uphold them ? Are political wisdom and virtue 
confined to the advocates of abolition and the men 
who raise the cry — " Perish the Constitution of the 
United States, it is unfit to exist \ " Shall we then go 
to the graves of such men as Benjamin Franklin, Ru- 
fus King, and of George Washington, to call down 



43 



imprecations upon their mouldering remains, while we 
proclaim them traitors to the cause of freedom and ene- 
mies to human happiness 1 There is error, — there rniist 
he error, if not guilt, — on the part of some who now 
seek to convulse this country with agitation, endanger- 
ing both peace and freedom. Once let the storm of 
civil war break over this land, and who can tell what 
portion of liberty would remain ? 

The country wants rest. The cause of religion 
wants it. Divided Churches in a state of repose might 
reunite, and join as formerly, in the same acts of wor- 
ship. If agitation must continue on the principle of 
abolition, the South has no security against continual 
encroachment. Ye professed lovers of truth and god- 
liness, if you must make war against the poUtical Con- 
stitution of the United States, tell us what would be 
your course as missionaries in a heathen country I 
Would you first stir up sedition there against a govern- 
ment that favored idolatry 1 So did not the Apostles 
of Jesus Christ. They opposed idolatry with the 
utmost force of reason, and with an undying zeal for 
the glory of Jehovah, but they never cast about them 
"firebrands, arrows, and death" (^Prov. xxvi. 18) ; never 
maligned the civil authority ; never strove to clothe the 
imperial magistracy of Rome with curses and revilings. 
As the cruel grinding despotism of the C?esars suffered 
them to iireach the Gospel, they thankfully availed them- 
selves of the privilege, and, in return for the favor they 
enjoyed, they taught exphcitly— and who dare say 
insincerely ?— the duty of submission to the government. 
Such was the example of the Apostles, and unquestion- 



44 

ably theii' example was by the design of our Lord Jesus 
Christ to guide us and others in all subsequent times. 

That example is to guide us now, if we are to abide 
by the " higher law " of the Scriptures. The enact- 
ment of the Fugitive Slave Bill does not demonstrate 
the Government of this land to be worse than the iron 
despotism of Rome, and so much worse that we are 
forbidden to reverence or regard it by all that is noble 
in manhood and sacred in moral principle. If avowed 
and notorious infidels had represented the Bible as 
teaching the bloody sedition with which we are strange- 
ly made famihar as the doctrine of Christian ministers, 
w^e should have been sure that their design was to sap 
the foundations of religion, and to stir up against the 
Church the strong embittered feeling of partisan and 
political rancor. And when Christian ministers take 
ground, such as infidels only can consistently occupy, 
they are doing irreparable injury to the cause of Christ 
which they profess to love and promote. 

That wonderful book, the Bible, contains instruction 
suited to the present emergency in our country, and so 
exactly fitted to the times that we feel as if the prophe- 
tic eye of inspiration has looked through the vista of 
ages to the present hour, and across the world to this 
remote land. Listen ! We are told by men that the 
Fugitive Slave Bill is iniquitous, base ; that it exposes 
the Government to scorn ; that it is to be treated as a 
nullity, and even to be resisted by force of arms at the 
risk and sacrifice of life ; and that death in such a 
struggle is a blessed and glorious martyrdom. This 
doctrine is the " higher law " possessing such extreme 



45 



sanctity as to nullify the acts of any government which 
ventures to violate it ! 

Let the question now be distinctly put, whether an 
inspired man, an Apostle, ever felt himself bound to 
restore a slave to his master ? Did this ever occur ? 
It did, and the fact is indisputable. 

A slave whose nau;ie was Onesimus, fled from his 
master Philemon, living at Colosse, and coming to 
Rome, there met with the Apostle Paul, and was con- 
verted under his ministry. After his conversion he was 
for a season detained by Paul at Rome, for the sake of 
certain services of which he was capable, and which 
were deemed of great importance. 

This man, this fugitive slave Onesimus, the Apostle 
Paul sent hack to his master Philemon, with an apology 
for not having sent him sooner. {Epist. to Phil v. 10, 
&c.) " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, which in 
time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable 
to thee and to me, whom I have sent again; thou 
therefore receive him : whom I would have retained 
with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto 
me in the bonds of the Gospel ; but without thy mind 
would I do nothing." 

This fact is on record in the BiUe ; this fact is part 
of Apostolic Church-history ; this fact is part of scrip- 
tural teaching ; is one mode in which God has chosen 
to teach us our duty under the Constitution which 
forms the several sovereign States of this Republic into 
one great nation The fact, as has been said, is indis- 
putable. Its import cannot be annulled by saying Paul 
did not appreciate the advantages of freedom. (1 Cor. 



46 

vii. 21.) "Art thou called being a servant (slave) care 
not for it ; but if thou mayest he made free, use it 
rather ; " nor by saying that the fact stands alone in 
the Bible, having no analogous teaching connected with 
it. {Eph. vi. 5, 6.) " Servants (including slaves), be 
obedient to them that are your masters according to the 
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your 
heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men- 
pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will 
of God from the heart." {Titus \\. 9.) " Exhort ser- 
vants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to 
please them well in all things." Now the " higher law," 
of which we hear so much, assumes to be the law of 
the Bible, but you see it is not the Bible, and that it 
finds no support in the Bible ; nay that the Bible con- 
demns it. What then ? These boastful teachers of a 
subhmated morahty are "higher" than the Scriptures, 
and, in being so, are higher and purer than God himself. 
They object not only to a human enactment but to 
divine legislation. They are, therefore, holding up the 
Scriptures before the eyes of men, and denouncing them 
as defective, hehind the tmies, below the morality of this 
day. They profess (we know) to love the Scriptures 
and to love Christ. " Judas, betrayest thou the son of 
man with a kiss ? " 

But, as has been said, the Bible favors liberty, and 
seeks to give men freedom, purity, happiness, and will 
do it, the most surely and the most effectually, according 
to the methods which God himself has described and 
established. 

Conclusion. We have taken on this occasion a 



47 

hasty glance at the history of our country from its first 
settlement mitil now, and have seen abundant proofs of 
the divine care and goodness. Surely our hearts should, 
in view of God's great mercies, rejoice with thanksgiv- 
ing. A little more than two centuries ago, the pioneers 
of the South were starving in Virginia (see Bancroft's 
Hist., vol. i, 140), and the first settlers of the North 
were shivering, encased in ice on the seaboard of Mas- 
sachusetts. After wars with the Indians, the French, 
the British, we took our place in the front rank of 
nations. Institutions of religion, learning, and bene- 
volence adorn our country. The spires of churches 
in every city, town, and village, pointing towards hea- 
ven, give their solemn, silent admonition to us to pre- 
pare to meet God. Our national ensign is known and 
respected on every sea and in every harbor. Our com- 
mercial enterprise penetrates every avenue leading to 
the different nations of the globe. With commerce the 
Protestant religion goes forth on its embassy of peace 
and mercy. And is our prosperity to be disturbed, to 
cease I Shall the ship of state, after outriding two fear- 
ful tempests raised by the demon of war, now sink and 
perish amid the crested billows of an angry sea I Shall 
the temple of our liberty, the noblest structure ever 
reared by the hands of man, and which seemed to 
be destined to perpetuity, now be shaken, and fall on 
its foundations a heap of ruins \ Shall the flag of the 
Union which has waved " in the battle and the breeze," 
which has waved over a happy people, be torn in pieces, 
and cast upon the winds \ Forbid it, Almighty God ! 
Let not the strife of words proceed to the strife of deeds ! 



48 

Let not brothers meet in armed array to shed each 
other's blood ! 

True patriotism summons us to preserve the Union ; 
religion aids patriotism. Tlie States can never sepa- 
rate except in wrath, involving war. May they never 
separate ! May the Temple of the Union stand till 
it slowly arrays itself in the hoary mantle of anti- 
quity ! May it stand century after century till the 
Archangel's trumpet sounds the knell of the world and 
of time ! 



APPENDIX. 



Note A.— {Page 8.) 
"As the ships were bearing Higginson and his followers out of sight of 
their native land, they remembered it, not as the scene of their sufferings 
from intolerance, but as the home of their fathers and the dwelling-place of 
their friends. They did not say, ' Farewell, Babylon ! forewell, Rome 1' 
but 'Farewell, dear England!^'" — Bancroft's Hist., Vol. i. p. 347. 

Note B.— (Page 11.) 
Whoever reads the objections of the infidels of France, before and during 
the French Revolution of 1793, to Christianity, will find that they are in 
reality objections to Roman Catholicism. The Bible, fairly interpreted, 
escapes many of their censures. Romish abuses, therefore, caused French 
infidelity. 

Note C.—{Page 17.) 

See " Loyola and Jesuitism,^'' by Isaac Taylor, where Jesuitism is thus 
represented : 

" But this same principle of unreasoning and unscrupulous subserviency 
to the will of a superior, how different a thing does it become when it is 
lifted into the place of sovereign importance in a society that has been con- 
stituted for the very purpose of laying an ambitious hand upon the things 
of tlie world and of fixing itself on every human interest with an unrelent- 
ing grasp."— P. 287. 

" An utter forgetfulness of these first principles of morals — or an entire 
ignorance of them — an ignorance chargeable, in great measure, upon the 
system under which Loyola had been trained, vitiates the Jesuit Institute 
throughout. As to modes of living, that is to say, ascetic practices, the 
Society enjoins and imposes nothing ; it would wish its members to live 
among other men as other men do ; yet allowing any, with the consent of 
their superiors, to adopt more severe rules." — P. 306. 

Accordingly, a Jesuit can conceal his Jesuitism, and in any capacity, or in 
any profession, plot and scheme for the interests of the Society to which he 
belongs. 

" Therefore it hath seemed good to us in the Lord (Jesuitical Society), 
with the express exception of the vow of obedience to the Pope for the time 
being, and the other three fundamental vows of Poverty, Chastity, and 
Obedience, to declare that none of these Constitutions, Declarations, or Rules 

4 



50 

of Life shall make obligatory any sin, whether mortal or venial ; unless the 
Superior may command it, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue 
of the vow of obedience."— P. 323, 324. 

If the Jesuit may, at the command of the Superior, commit a great 
number of sins, it is not easy to believe that he may not commit any sin 
towards which he may be drawn by the interests of the Society. 

" The Jesuit Institute, therefore, is at once an absolute monarchy, a mixed 
monarchy, and a democracy, and it is so^ — not by a balance of the several 
elements of power in simultaneous juxtaposition — but by an alternating 
and variable supremacy of each." — P. 328. 

" On this principle, as well as in the interpretation which Loyola has put 
npon the doctrine of obedience, the Tnost candid inquirer into the merits of 
Jesuitism is compelled to acknowledge that the system rests upon a principle 
and authorizes practices that do the most frightful violence to human nature, 
and that contravene, in an outrageous manner, the first principles of natural 
and revealed religion. In these instances the inherent and irremediable 
viciousness of this Institute obtrudes itself upon our view." — P. 337. 

" Every Jesuit is a spy upon every Jesuit : a network of perfidy embraces 
the entire community, and from its meshes not even those highest in author- 
ity stand for a moment clear." — P. 340. 

" But that these doctrines and these practices (forming the ' debauched 
morality exposed and condemned by Pascal'), necessarily fatal to virtue and 
piety, had not only received authentication from Rome, but, though diverse, 
and in some respects novel, they had all sprung out of Romanism." " They 
were so far exaggerations of Romanism, that it would not have been possible 
to deal with them in a conclusive manner, without coming very near to the 
ground which the Reformers of Germany and Switzerland had made their 
own."— P. 388. 

Francis Xavier is sometimes referred to as an illustration of Jesuitism, 
but without good reason. Such a reference tends directly to deceive the 
unlearned reader or hearer. Taylor says truly that Xavier scarcely came 
under the influence of Loyola (p. 106), "for the high-spirited and heroic 
Francis Xavier seems to have held an independant course, almost from the 
first period of his associating himself with Loyola. His was a mind, and 
his a moral power, which could not permanently adapt itself to a subordinate 
position," 

Pascal, in his " Provincial Letters," thus represents a Jesuitical monk 
•endeavoring to prove that a criminal act may be changed by a good 
intention. 

" They have no more to do than turn off their intention from the desire 
of vengeance, which is criminal, and direct it to a desire to defend their honor, 
which, according to us Jesuits, is quite tcarrantable. And in this way our 
doctors discharge all their duty towards God and towards man. By permit- 
ting the action they gratify the loorld, and by purifying the intention, they give 
satisfaction to the gospel. This is a secret, sir, which was entirely unknown 
■to the ancients; the world is indebted for the discovery entirely to our 
doctors."- P. 154. 
" From all this it appears that a military man may demand satisfaction on 



51 

the spot, from the person who has injured him, not indeed with the intention 
of rendering evil for evil, but with that of preserving Ms honor." — P. 155. 

Such is Jesuitism — such its goodness. Dr. Ryder must have no small 
courage — or, more properly, hardihood, to extol Jesuitism before an intelli- 
gent Protestant audience in the city of New York. 

The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia thus speaks of the Jesuits. " The monk 
was a retired devotee of heaven ; the Jesuit is a chosen soldier of the Pope. 
That the members of the new order migiit have full leisure for this active 
service, they were exempted from the usual functions of other monks. 
They were not required to spend their time in the long ceremonial offices 
and numberless mummeries of the Roman worship. They attended no 
processions and practised no austerities. They neither chanted nor prayed. 
' They cannot sing,' said their enemies, ' for birds of prey never do.' " As 
quoted in Encyclopaedia of Relig. Knovi'ledge. 

The Jesuits are thus described in Macaulay's History, Vol. ii., pp; 50 51 . 
" Throughout Catholic Europe the secrets of every government, and of 
almost every family of note, were in their keeping. They glided from one 
Protestant country to another, under innumerable disguises, as gay cavaliers, 
as simple rustics, as Puritan Preachers." 

Page 52 : — " It was alleged, and not without foundation, that the ardent 
public spirit which made the Jesuit regardless of his ease, of his liberty, and 
of his life, made him also regardless of truth and mercy ; that no means 
which could promote the interest of his religion seemed to him unlawful ; 
and that by the interest of Ms religion, he too often meant the interest of 
his Society." " Instead of toiling to elevate human nature to the noble 
standard fixed by divine precept and example, he had lowered the standard 
till it was beneath the average level of human nature." " It was not strange 
that people of all ranks, and especially of the highest ranks, crowded to the 
confessionals in the Jesuit temples, for from these confessionals none went 
discontented away." Page 63 : — " He had at his command an immense 
dispensary of anodynes for wounded consciences. In the books of casuistry 
which had been written by his brethren and printed with the approbation of 
his superiors, were to be found doctrines consolatory to transgressors of 
every class. There the bankrupt was taught how he might without sm 
secrete his goods from his creditors. The servant was taught how he 
might, WITHOUT SIN, run off with his master's plate." " la truth, if society 
continued to hold together, if life and property enjoyed any security, it was 
because common sense and common humanity restrained men from doing 
what the Society of Jesus assured them tliey might with a safe con- 
science do." 

But Dr. Ryder, who, as a distinguished Jesuit, must know the character 
of his brethren, declares that they are " all, all honorable men." Does the 
sun shine? Does white differ from black? Dr. Ryder overtasks our 
credulity. Protestants must yield to Catholics m the ability to swallow 
camels. 

Note D.— (Page 18.) 
" Louis the Fourteenth had, from an early age, regarded the Calvinists 



52 

with an aversion at once religious and political. As a zealous Roman 
Catholic, he detested their theological dogmas. As a prince, fond of arbi- 
trary power, he detested those Republican theories which were interpiingled 
with the Genevese divinity." — Macaula-y's History, vol. ii. p. 13. "The 
final blow was struck. The Edict of Nantes was revoked ; and a crowd of 
decrees against the sectaries appeared in rapid succession (all this was done 
in despite of the most solemn promises and declarations). Boys and girls 
were torn from their parents and sent to be educated in convents. All Cal- 
vinistic ministers were commanded either to abjure their religion, or to quit 
the country within a fortnight. The other professors of the Reformed 
faith were forbidden to leave the kingdom ; and in order to prevent them 
from making their escape, the outports and frontiers were strictly guarded. 
It was thought that the flocks, thus separated from evil shepherds, would 
soon return to the true fold ; but, in spite of all the vigilance of the military 
police, there was a vast emigration. It was calculated that, in a few months* 
fifty thousand families quitted France for ever. Nor were the refugees such 
as a country can well spare." — {lb. p. 14.) " Spain and Rome loudly 
reprobated (p. 15) the cruelty of turning a savage and licentious soldiery 
loose on an unoffending people. One cry of grief and rage rose from the 
whole of Protestant Europe." 

Even James the Second was compelled (p. 17) " to declare publicly, that 
he disapproved of the manner in which the Huguenots had been treated, 
granted to the exiles some relief from his privy purse, and by letters under 
his great seal invited his subjects to imitate his liberality." In such lan- 
guage does Mr. Macaulay describe the " decline of Protestantism" in France. 
In a report of the lecture delivered by Bishop Hughes, Nov. 10th, 1850» 
(published in the Eienbig Post, Nov. 11th), Mr. Macaulay is said to be 
" one of the clearest minds of which the great English nation can this day 
boast." Now see how Mr. Macaulay employs his clear mind in depicting 
Roman Catholicism (Hist. vol. i, p. 44). "From the time when the Barba- 
rians overran the Western Empire, to the time of the revival of letters, the 
influence of the Church of Rome had been generally favorable to science, 
to civilization, to good government ; but, during the last three centuries, to 
stunt the growth of the human mind has been her chief object." (N.B. — 
This is said by the " celebrated Macaulay," so warmly extolled by Bishop 
Hughes, for the clearness of his mind.) " Throughout Christendom, what- 
ever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, and wealth, and in 
the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in 
inverse proportion to her powers. The loveliest and most fertile provinces 
of Europe have, under her rules, been sunk in poverty, in political serxitnde 
and in intellectual torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for 
sterility and barbarism, have been turned by skill and industry into gardens, 
and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and 
poets. * * * The Protestants of the United States have left far 
behind them the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The 
Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the continent round 
them is in a ferment with Protestant activity and enterprise. The French 
have, doubtless, shown an energy and an intelligence which, even when 



53 

misdirected, have justly entitled them to be called a great people. But this 
apparent exception will be found to confirm the rule; for in no country that 
is called Roman Catholic, has the Roman Catholic Church, during several 
generations, possessed so little authority as in France." 

Note E.— (Page 18.) 

Persecution in Spain and Italy. — " The Reformation made a consider- 
able progress in Spain and Italy, soon after the rupture between Luther and 
the Roman Pontiff. In all the provinces of Italy, but more especially in the 
territories of Venice, Tuscany, and Naples, the religion of Rome lost ground, 
and great numbers of persons, of all ranks and orders, expressed an aversion 
to the Papal yoke. 

"In several places the Popes put a stop to the progress of the 
Reformation, by letting loose upon the pretended heretics their bloody 
inquisitors, who spread the marks of their usual barbarity througli the 
greatest part of Italy. These formidable ministers of superstition put so 
many to death, and perpetrated on the friends of religious liberty such 
horrid acts of cruelty and oppression, that most of the reformists consulted 
their safety by a voluntary exile, while others returned to the religion of 
Rome, at least in external appearance." "But the inquisition which 
Aould not gain any footing in the kingdom of Naples reigned triumphant 
in Spain; and by racks, gibbets, stakes, and other such formidable 
instruments of its method of persuading, soon terrified the people back into 
Popery, and suppressed the vehement desire they had of changing a 
superstitious worship for a rational religion." — (Mosheim, vol. iv. pp. 128, 
129, and 131. 

Knowing as Bishop Hughes does all these and other similar facts, it cer- 
tainly required no little assurance, not to say audacity, for him to speak pub- 
licly of the "decline of Protestantism." 

Note F.—(Page 21.) 

" The Slave-Trade united the races (Caucasian and Ethiopian) by an 
indissoluble bond ; the first ship that brought Africans to America was a 
sure pledge that, in due time, ships from the New World would carry the 
equal blessings of Christianity to the burning plains of Nigritia, that 
descendants of Africans would toil for the benefits of European civilization^ 
That America would benefit the African was always the excuse of the 
Slave-Trade."— Bancro//, vol. ii. p. 465. The Africans have unquestionably 
been benefited, but that does not warrant the perpetuity of slavery — though 
it led to its origin and increase ; but rather intimates to us, that now the 
slave should be set free and sent " home''' to Africa. 

Mr. Bancroft's own theory in regard to slavery is thus expressed, vol. 
iii. pp. 403-4. " Our systems of morality will not explain the phenomenon ; 
its cause is not to be sought in the suppression of moral feelings, but rather 
in the condition of a branch of the human family not yet conscious of 
power, nor yet fully possessed of its moral and rational life. In the state 
of humanity itself in Senegambia, in Upper and Lower Guinea, the problem 
of the Slave-Trade finds its solution. The quick materials of life, the faci- 



54 

lity of obtaining sustenance, the nature of the negro as influenced by a hot 
sun, a healthful and fertile clime, an undeveloped intelligence, and the fruit- 
fulness of the race, explain why from century to century the slave ships 
could find a freight, and yet the population of the interior be constantly re- 
plenished." According to this theory, the existence of the Slave-Trade did 
not denote formerly a gross moral debasement — such as would now inevi- 
tably accompany it. The truth of tWs remark appears in the following his- 
torical facts. " Whitefield, who believed that God's providence would cer- 
tainly make slavery terminate for the advantage of the Africans, pleaded 
before the Trustees in its favor (the laws of Georgia condemning the 
Slave-Trade, when slaves were first brought to Savannah, where Whitefield 
was) as essential to the prosperity of Georgia. The Moravians (in Georgia) 
still expressed regret, moved partly by a hatred of oppression and partly by 
antipathy to the race of colored men. At last, they too began to think that 
negro slaves might be employed in a Christian spirit ; and it was agreed 
that if the negroes are treated in a Christian manner their change of country 
might prove to them a benefit. A message from Germany served to hush 
their scruples. ' If you take slaves in faith, and with the intent of conduct- 
ing them to Christ, the action will not be a sin, but may prove a benedic- 
tion.' " — Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 448. 

Note G.—(Page 22.) 

" We have seen Elizabeth of England a partner in the commerce of 
which the Stuarts to the days of Queen Anne were distinguished patrons ; 
the city of Amsterdam did not blush to own shares in a slave ship, to ad- 
vance money for the outfits, and to participate in th^ returns. In propor- 
tion to population New York had imported as many Africans as Virginia. 
That New York is not a slave state like Carolina is due to climate, and not 
to the superior humanity of its founders. Stuyvesant was instructed to use 
every exertion to promote the sale of negroes. They were imported some- 
times by way of the West Indies, often directly from Guinea, and were sold 
at public auction to the highest bidder." — Bancroji, vol. ii. p. 303. 

" At that period (during the boyhood of General Israel Putnam, born 
January 17, 1718) there were slaves in all the Colonies. It is true they were 
not very numerous in New England. Still slavery existed, and African 
bondmen and bond-women and bond-children were found, ' tell it not in 
Gath,' in all the towns and scattered over the fiirming districts of Massa- 
chusetts. It fell to the lot of one of Putnam's neighbors to have one of 
these slaves in his family, who was noted and feared for his fierce, ungo- 
vernable temper, and a disposition that would have served a savage or a 
fiend. There seemed to be no way to subdue him but with the lash, and that, 
though often repeated, was far from being as effectual as could have been 
wished." — Life of Putnam, p. 223. 

Note H.—(Page 27.) 
The present Constitution of the United States was adopted by our fore- 
fathers, after they had found by experience the utter inadequacy of the Con- 
federation to answer the purposes of a general government. They adopted 



55 

a Constitution under a deep conviction of its utility and even its absolute 
necessity. They dreaded disunion. They regarded the Union of the States 
as essential to the permanence of our Republican institutions, and the peace 
and prosperity of our country. A reference may here be properly made to 
some of the expressions used by statesmen of an earlier period in regard to 
the Confederation and the Union. 

Thomas Jefferson says ( Works, vol. i. p. 63), " Our first essay in 
America to estabhsh a federative government had ifallen on trial very short 
of its object." Alexander Hamilton (Federalist, p. 8) says," It may bethought 
superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the Union, a point no 
doubt deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in 
every State, and one which it may be imagined has no adversaries." John 
Jay says (Federalist, p. 9), " It has until lately been a received and uncon- 
tradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on 
their continuing firmly united, and the wishes and prayers and efTorts of our 
best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object." 
Again, Mr. Jay (Federalist, p. 12) says, " It is worthy of remark that not only 
tlie first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late Convention 
(1787), have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the pros- 
perity of America depended upon its Union" The Union was regarded 
as important in maintaining peace with foreign nations (Fed. pp. 13 and 14) ; 
and equally important in securing the regard of the nations generally (Fed 
p. 18) ; in preventing conflicts between the States (Fed. p. 21) ; and insurrec- 
tions among the people (Fed. p. 69.) Mr. Madison (Mad. Papers, p. 689) 

says, " Maryland consented to adopt the Confederation after much delay 

under the persuasion that a final and formal establishment of the Federal 
Union and Government would make a favorable impression not only on other 
foreign nations, but on Great Britain herself." 

Mr. Gorham (in Convention of 1787, Mad. Papers, p. 987) "conceived 
that a rupture of the Union would be an event unhappy for all." Mr 
Madison (Papers, p. 992) considered the total separation of the States to 
the formation of partial Confederacies, " to be an event truly deplorable, and 
that those who might be accessary to either could never be forgiven by their 
country, nor by themselves." Alexander Hamilton (Mad. Papers, p. 994) 
said, one consequence of a dissolution of the Union would be that " alliances 
would be formed with different rival and hostile nations of Europe, who will 
ferment disturbances among ourselves and make us parties to all their quar- 
rels." Gouverneur Morris (Mad. Papers,]). 1029) used this language in the 
Convention. " This country must be united. If persuasion does not unite 
it, the sword will. He begged this consideration might have its due weight. 
The scenes of horror attending civil commotion cannot be described, and 
the conclusion of them will be worse than the term of their continuance." 

Note I.— (Page 42.) 

The following advice was given to Fugitive Slaves through a religious 

paper of this city (Independent, Oct. 2ith, 1850). "Be fully prepared for 

your own defence. If to you death seems better than slavery, then refuse 

not to die, whether on the wayside, at your own threshold, or even as a felon 



56 

upon the gallows. Defend your liberty and the liberty of your wife and 
children, as you would defend your liberty and theirs against the assassin. 
If you die thus, you die nobly, and your blood will be the redemption of 
your race. Should you destroy the life of your assailant you will pass into 
the custody of the criminal law, as administered in the Free States, under 
an indictment for murder; but the verdict of the community and the verdict 
of almost any jury will be "justifiable homicide in self-defence;" and that 
fact being known, the South will cease to molest you and your fellows, 
&c., &c." 

It is also suggested to them to go back to slavery to plot in secret against 
their masters. 

If moral principle were not absolute — we should begin after this to feel 
kindly towards the Jesuits, and to unite with Dr. Ryder in calling them 
" good men" — for they did not presume to claim for their atrocious subtle- 
ties the sanction of the Bible, but according to the Monk in " Pascal's 
Letters," declared them to be inventions of their own, concerning which the 
ancients were wholly ignorant. It is true there is in the editorial of tlie 
Independent for Oct. 24th, 1850, something about peaceable measures and 
the unlawfulness of combined and organized resistance. But all such 
twaddle is child's play and nonsense, after advising a fugitive slave to slay 
his pursuer, or even the officer of the Law who would arrest him. Kill him 
is " the advice" — but kill him peaceably. One interpretation only can be put 
on the article in the Independent — it is murderous, seditious, bloody, fiendish. 
And such " advice" comes too from those who profess to have drunk deep 
of the Christian religion, and to be meek followers of the Prince of Peace ! 
The nullification of law by individuals, or by a few men feeling themselves 
aggrieved by a legislative act — is sedition. If a few men of themselves may 
despise and trample on a given law, others may do the same in reference 
to a law which they may deem oppressive ; and thus there is a sus- 
pension of law — (anarchy) — the most appalling condition of things, but 
no such Revolution as our fathers sought and effected at the close of the 
last century. " They remonstrated and petitioned for ten years" (Patrick 
Henry's speech), acting according to what is said by Mr. Jefierson in the 
Declaration of Independence — that " Prudence will dictate that governments 
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and accord- 
ingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while 
evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which 
they are accustomed." — Jefferson's Works, vol. i. p. 16. But, as reo-.irds 
the offensive law of the last session of Congress, no attempt has been made 
to change it, nor has there been any opportunity for the attempt. Under such 
a government as ours, a government of opinion — of the people — seditious 
resistance to the law is the more criminal. Before resistance is ever made 
it should be profoundly considered, and the consequences most carefully 
weighed. — {Paley's Moral Philosophy, p. 310.) 

If the horrible advice given to Fugitive Slaves is justifiable, then it may 
be extended to those in bondage in the Southern States — to all of them. Let 
us now suppose such advice given and adopted, and you have three millions 
armed for murder and devastation. If the fugitive may thrust a dagger into 



57 

the man who attempts to carry him back to bondage, surely the slave in the 
house of his master may do the same towards him who would retain him in 
bondage. Are we to wonder now that Southern men are indignant, and 
even vindictive ? The doctrines urged against them do not leave them safe 
at their firesides or in their beds. 

And should the Fugitive Bill be annulled to-morrow, that would not stop 
the agitation on which some men live. They would still feel bound to array 
the North against the South— for their resistance is to slavery itself.^ 

But the inhuman extravagance of the Abolitionists is not the sentiment of 
the North, or tlie Northern people. Of this the South may feel perfectly 
assured. It is not requisite for any of us to live south of "Mason and 
Dixon's Line" in order to appreciate the cool and diabolical atrocity of strivmg 
to agitate a servile war, that most horriUe of all wars. To such a result the 
« advice to Fugitive Slaves" directly tends. If the consequences stated are 
disavowed, a« it is hoped they may be, by the authors of the " advice^ then 
we acquit them of had intention, but we cannot forbear to stamp theu- jtrin- 
ciples with the seal of reprobation. A suggestion now arises in view of the 
" advice" and the remarks which accompany it— that if the fugitives may 
contend unto the death against their masters and the officers of the law, 
then those white men who uphold them and urge them on, may in their cause 
use the stiletto and wield the sword. If a « halo of glory" encircles the contend- 
ino- fuo-itive, why may not a few rays from the halo M about the head of his wliite 
abettor and coadjutor 1 Thus the servile army may be augmented by the 
array of white Abolitionists, eager for glory and the death of martyrdom or 
universal freedom. But perhaps, after all, this reasoning proceeds on a 
wroncr assumption, since the position of the "Independent" (Dec. 1-th, 
1850)^ appears to be equivalent, if we may trust to implication or intiniation, 
to that which Peter and John took when they were commanded by the 
Sanhedrim "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus," and made 
this reply, " whether it be right to hearken unto you more than to God, 
iud<re ye " Is it indeed true, then, that the author or authors of "Advice to 
Fugitives" only mean that when a human law directly contravenes a dmne 
law" the latter is to be obeyed, and the consequences of disobedience tothe 
civil statute endured even to the worst extremity which tyranny can devise . 
If this be so, they have taken a most infelicitous mode of expressing their 
principles, and truth and religion demand an immediate explanation from 
them If they do not consider tliemselves as acting according to the 
example of Peter and John, why do they refer to that example as conclusive 
against the views of certain opponents ? The train of thought here pursued 
leads to the inquiry— what is the great principle on which the Fugitive Slave 
Bill is to be resisted and opposed 1 What is that principle 1 Answer, 1. 
It is not that a divine law is a higher law than any adverse human statute. 
In re<rard to that, all in our country are agreed (unless Hobbes may chance 
to have some followers among us). 2. The principle is, that our Constitu- 
tional law is opposed to the higher law of the Bible, and hence as the Bible 
cToverns the conscience, the Fugitive Slave Bill must be withstood. Accord- 
Tndy it is assumed that the Bible so opposes slavery that it annuls all law 
in the maintenance and regulation of it. If the Bible does not so oppose 



58 

slavery, then where is the source of the "higher law" of the Abolitionists'? 
Is it their reason and their conscience separate from the Bible, and in disregard 
of its teachings ? Then the Abolitionists oppose the Bible, or exceed it, as 
well as resist the Constitution and Laws of the country. If they say we 
abide by the Bible — " to the law and to the testimony," then we join cheer- 
fully with them in the reference, and proceed to test the doctrine by the 
Scriptures. They speak to the slaves, and so did Paul ; and we compare 
directly their respective teachings. 

1. Doctrine of Abolitionists as conveyed in " Advice to Fugitive Slaves." 
" Be fully prepared for your own defence. Defend your liberty and the 
liberty of your wife and children, as you would defend your life and theirs 
against the assassin. If you die thus you die nobly, and your blood shall be 
the redemption of your race. Should you destroy the life of your assailant," 
&c., &c. 

2. Doctrine of the Bible to be compared with the former. — Eph. vi. 6. 
" Servants (slaves) be obedient to them that are your masters, according to 
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ." — 1 Tim. vi. 1. " Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count 
their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
trine be not blasphemed." See Col. iii. 22. Tit. ii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 18. 1 Cor. 
vii. 21, 22. Epist. to Philemon. 

If, now, " Arm yourselves against your masters, and kill your masters if 
they refuse you freedom," is the same as " Obey your masters, and count your 
masters worthy of all honor" — then the abolitionists have the support of the 
Bible, and not otherwise. Whether their teaching agrees with the teaching 
of the Bible, judge ye. 

In the general argument on the subject of slavery, the grand 
reference is to the law of love, which is deemed decisive in requiring 
emancipation. That the law of love, together with considerations 
which respect man as a moral agent, supremely accountable to God, does 
contemplate emancipation at some fitting period, and as soon as may be, in 
consistence with the rights and interests of master and slave, is a truth 
imbedded in the scriptures, and of most happy influence — happy, because 
persuasive. But, allowing this, must we enforce the law of heel The 
" quality" of love, like that of " mercy," " is not strained, it droppeth like 
the dew from heaven." Now, the abolitionists would enforce the law of love, 
and others equally desiring all slaves to be free, would not. It was not 
enforced by our Saviour, nor by his apostles, nor by the early church ; but 
the work of freedom went on under tlie influence of the church ( Wadding- 
ton^s Ch. Hist. p. 204) — so that her noble achievements in this cause became 
works of historical commemoration. It is under the impression of some 
religious feeling says Guizot (On Civilization p. 132), "the hopes of the future, 
the equality of all Christian men, and so on, that the freedom of the slave is 
granted." Some time must be allowed for the influences mentioned by 
Guizot to produce their effect. Observe the following statement by Mr. 
Macaulay (Hist. England, vol. i. 20) : " It is remarkable that the two great- 
est and most salutary social revolutions which have taken place in England 
— that revolution, which, in the thirteenth century, put an end to the tyranny 



59 

of nation over nation ; and that revolution, which, a few generations later, 
put an end to the property of man in man, were silently and imperceptibly 
effected. They struck contemporary observers with no surprise, and have 
received from historians a very scanty measure of attention. They were 
brought about neither by legislative regulation nor by physical force. Moral 
causes noiselessly effaced, first, the distinction between Norman and Saxon, 
and then the distinction between master and slave." We want moral causes 
to work now as the Bible contemplated, for they are adequate to the work 
of emancipation. If the law of love is to be the great principle by which 
slavery is to be made to cease, it is the law of love as understood and iimul- 
cated by the apostles. The apostles understood the law of love, yet — observe 
distinctly — they mver sought at once to dissolve all servile bonds, choosing 
rather to pursue a course which would first soften all the evils of slavery, and 
then terminate it. Had such a course been pursued in this country, the 
result would, at this day, have filled the hearts of us all with joy. Thus will 
the South, if ever, consent to the freedom of all whom they hold in bondage. 
The law of love exists in the south, as truly as it does here ; there are as 
good Christians there as here; and religion and the church, if not hindered by 
rash interference from without, will there, as in the early ages in Europe, and 
afterwards in England, loosen the bonds of the enslaved, and lead them forth 
to freedom. Since history is what it is, and the Bible what it is, no wonder 
reflecting men are shocked at the mention of dissolving the union of these 
states, if slavery is not at once abolished. Extravagant men here exclaim, 
" Perish the Union," and men as extravagant at the South re-echo the same 
cry. Thus abolitionists and pro-slavery men both seek a separation of the 
states. Suppose a separation, and it may well be questioned whether the 
friends or enemies of slavery would find cause of joy. Such a result would 
exactly tally with the great design of England, in the w\ar of our revolution 
(Lee's Southern War, p. 10. Putnam's Life, p. 142), and be in contradiction 
to the ardent hope of our fathers, who contended for our national freedom. 
If the South were a nation by itself, would the evils of slavery be less, and 
its end ensue the sooner ? Who could expect either? If the South were 
separate, would the opinion of the civilized world against slavery be nothing 
to her ? and would her slaves be more secure with a line of indefinite length, 
over which the slave might easily pass to freedom ? The dissolution of the 
Union as a remedy for slavery, or as the equivalent of abolition, is absurd. 
The world is in progress — and the world of slaves as well as that of the free ; 
and to prevent emancipation for any very long period, is about as feasible as 
to imprison the rays of the sun or enchain the tides of the ocean. But the 
work of emancipation will go on more rapidly, in the absence of all agitation by 
the extreme abolitionists, and, at the same time, the condition of the slaves, 
antecedent to freedom, be greatly ameliorated. 



I 



i 



f 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




01 1 899 726 8 



